Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-24
HON. d. b. CULBERSON
Takes Issue with the Ants and will Vote
z for Prohibition.

Dallas
GENTLEMEN am in receipt of your
/ favor of the Attn inst, and regret that Inv
engsgements have not permitted an ear
lier reply.
You call my attention to the fact that q
largely attended meeting of appointment
Democrats" from all parts of the state
was held at Austin on the 30th ult., for
the purpose of calling q state convention
to meet in Dallas on the first Monday in
MAY. | am also advised by your com
muncation that such a convention haG
been called, and that the purpose of the
promoters of this movement was to de
clare: l. "Ehe time-honOted and cardinal
! ''principIe of the Democra ic party
| 'from' Jefferson, its founder, down
to the present time, viz: "OppOsition to
all forms of sumptuary legislation. I'd.
To set on foot vigorous and well or
gauized campaign against the proposed
constitutional assortment" You invite
me to attend and address the convention
1 am very greatly obliged by the honor of
the invitation, but am not in accord with
the objects of the proposed convention
and, therefore, deem it necessary to de-
cline the invitation. IL
might close this reply here, but my
respect for the high character of each
member of the committee leads me to
submit, with great Difference, the follow
ing observations:
AS understand, from your communi-
cation, the controlling object of the pro-
posed convention is to sdenOunCe pro-
hioition as undemOcratic and ViolatiVe of
a cardinal principle of thej Democratic
party. This movement seems to nae to
be revolt against the will ofsthe Demo-
cratic party, and deliberate effort to
drag the party into a partisan conflict
upon question which has been decided
by the party in convention to sbe non
partisan and political. am aware
of the fact that there is an apparent
variauCe between the form of the ques-
ton as considered by the convention and
the amendment proposed, but all must
agree that the convention intendedtO
cover the question as now presented.
The Democratic state administration,
which submitted the proposition, regards
ed it as non partisan and nOn-pOlltiCaly
The Legislature, carrying out the will OF
the party as expressed in convention, sub
mitted the proposition for the action of
the people at time when, it was sup
posed, the public mind would be free
from the influence of partisanship and
unsWayed by the claims, arising out Of
party service, of aspirants for office.
There was g manifest difference Of
opinion upon the question of pro-
hibitiOn prevailing among Democrats
and, whether wisely or unwisely,
the party had deemed it best to elImin-
ate the question from party politics. The
object, doubtless, was to present an OPP
pOrtunity to test the strength of prOhib-
ition without involving the loyalty to
party. The objects of the proposed con-
vention, as stated by you, are, in nv
opinion, wholly at variance with the will
and object of the party and, therefore,
do not perceive how any Democrat, who
recognizes the duty of upholding and
abiding by the will of the party, can
consistently participate in such
movement. l think the I'M
wisdom of this proposed action is not
confined within the narrow limits of party
expediency or discipline, but it covers a.
much wider field. If the proposed con-
vention shall declare, as it's promoters
expect, that prohibition is undemocrstic
and violative of a cardinal principle of
Democratic faith, it will annonce a pro-
position which cannot be sustained either
upon principle or by authority. The evil
influence, therefore, of the proposed con-
vention will not stop with the blow in
fiCted upon the established usage and
discipline of the party, but will tend to
array Democrats against prohibition upon
false and untenaOle grounds. While
1t may be true that the influence of the
convention, SO far as it may assume the
province to lay down Democratic doc
trine may be greatly subdued and re-
strained by reason of the revolutionary
and unauthorized character of the assem-
blage, still whatever of effect it may have
will be hurtful to the party. The hope OF
the country for the enforcement of great
principles upon the policies of the coun-
try, principles believed te. be essential to
the prosperity and we'll being of the whole
country, rests upon the Democratic party,
and any movements imperiling it's
integrity or tending to lessen its
power to accomplish these noble pur-
poses, is greatly to be deplored. Prohi-
bitiOn is simple exercise Of police
power, inherent and abiding with the
people TIE courts, state and federal,
have so declared, and adjudicated. No
question arising ont of our form of gov
eminent has beenemore definitely settled
and adjudicatedS The question is not
one Of power, but the sole and only ques-
ton before the people of Texas is: "Are
the evils which attend the manufacture
and sale of alcoholic liquors as a beVer-
age so hurtfnl to the welfare OF the
public as to authorize the prohibition of
both ?"
1 concede that persons do, and may
very properly, differ as to the extent of
the injury inflicted upon the public by
these evils, and this, together with
prevalent doubt in the minds of many
that prohibition cannot be enforced. pre-
sents the only debatable ground in this
The assumption that any
principle of Democratic faith denies to q
majority of the people of state the right
and power of the people to employ pro-
hibftion in the suppression of an
evil, which, in the judgement of
such majority, is destructive of the
pablo welfare, assails the most cher
shed principle of our theory of
government. 1 take great pleasure in
making the statement that the Demo
cratic party is the devoted friend of the
people. In this respect, indeed, 1t par
takes largely of the persona character